By Bob Irvine
Forcing Efficacy is related to how quickly a related flux imbalance at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) is restored to equilibrium and could potentially make an enormous difference to how we calculate Equilibrium Climate sensitivity (ECS).
Is it possible that the Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) of a small change in GHG forcing is a lot lower than the ERF for a similar change in solar forcing? This essay attempts to make this case.
I’m not saying here that the inputs to the model, Figure 1, are accurate, they almost certainly aren’t, I’m simply trying to show what is possible if ERF, as discussed below, is taken into account.
If, for example, a one W/M^2 change in GHG forcing only had a quarter of the surface temperature effect in total and over time as say a one W/M^2 change in solar forcing then it is possible to create a model that tracks past temperature with surprising accuracy. This has been done in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 – The model (Red) is compared to the NOAA measured temperature (Blue) and assumes that each W/M^2 of GHG forcing has one quarter of the temperature effect of a similar solar forcing. Lag times are allowed for, and an estimate is made for aerosols and natural internal variability. The cooling effect of volcanic activity is not included in this model and may explain some of the inconsistency in 1980 and 1990.
The model in Figure 1 compares favourably with the IPCC’s solution to the same problem as shown in Figure 2 below.
The blue line in Figure 2 is the IPCC’s expected equilibrium temperature response as stated in their reports, AR5 and AR6 for the dates as shown. The relative positions of these two lines is not important and relates to the complex area of transient temperature response as compared to equilibrium temperature response.
The important thing to notice in Figure 2 is that the IPCC’s modelled equilibrium temperature response (Blue) is diverging rapidly from the NOAA measured temperature (Orange). The IPCC’s equilibrium temperature has increased on average at a rate of 0.26C/Decade since 1945 while the HadCrut temperature series has increased at an average rate of 0.11C/Decade since 1945. Importantly, this discrepancy appears to be getting worse indicating that human influences on climate forcing are not the whole story.
Figure 2 – Forcing is taken directly from the IPCC reports and converted to Equilibrium climate response temperature (Blue) then compared to the actual HadCrut temperature as recorded. The blue line is fitted using 4 points from the IPCC reports. The IPCC’s AR5 states that in 1950 humans had added 0.57 W/M2 to the global energy balance. In 1980 1.25 W/m2. In 2011 2.29 W/M2. The AR6 states that we had added 2.72 W/M2 in 2019. These are multiplied by 0.81 (3.0/3.7) to convert to Equilibrium Climate response temperature according to the IPCC’s (most likely) ECS of 3.0C.
THE CASE FOR “ERF” BEING SIGNIFICANT
Forster [1], make the case that “Effective Radiative Forcing” (ERF) is a much more useful way of estimating climate sensitivity than conventional; one size fits all, Radiative Forcing (RF). They make their case succinctly in the following quote;
“Imagine, for example, that the atmosphere alone (perhaps through some cloud change unrelated to any surface temperature response) quickly responds to a large Radiative Forcing to restore the flux imbalance at the TOA (Top Of Atmosphere), yielding a small effective climate forcing. In this case the ocean would never get a chance to respond to the initial Radiative Forcing, so the resulting climate response would be small, and this would be consistent with our diagnosed “Effective Climate Forcing” rather than the conventional “Radiative Forcing.”
It follows that a shorter response time at the “Top of the Atmosphere” (TOA) produces a lower climate sensitivity. Hansen [2] confirm and support this by saying “On a planet with no ocean or only a mixed layer ocean, the climate response time is proportional to climate sensitivity. ………..Hansen et al (1985) show analytically, with ocean mixing approximated as a diffusive process, that the response time increases as the square of climate sensitivity.”
ERF is the metric we should be using to evaluate any warming from increased GHGs in the atmosphere and this is directly calculated from energy residence time in the earth’s climate system. Importantly this system includes the world’s oceans.
It is established physics that the world’s oceans are opaque to energy with the wavelength generally reemitted by CO^2. This energy is almost totally absorbed in the first 0.15mm skin of the oceans. The top 1.0 mm of the ocean is generally referred to as the evaporation layer, so accordingly energy reemitted by the GHGs and striking the ocean is largely returned to the atmosphere immediately as latent heat of evaporation. It is then returned to space relatively quickly.
Solar energy, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly responsible for the temperature profile of the world’s oceans. It is readily absorbed to a depth of up to 100 meters in clear water and can remain in the ocean for centuries or sometimes thousands of years.
It follows that equilibrium restoration times at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) are likely to be significantly faster, on average, for a change in GHG forcing than for a similar change in solar forcing.
Ignoring these factors, the IPCC AR4 states that ERF for solar forcing is actually lower than ERF for the GHGs. They then modified this position in later reports and now believe that ERF for solar and the GHGs is similar.
The IPCC position appears to be erroneously supported by the models.
It is clear that the latest models treat all energy that is absorbed in the first 10m grid of the ocean in the same way. The “Technical Guide to MOM 4.0, GFDL Ocean Group Technical Report 5, 2008) divides solar penetration into the water column into three exponentials. The assumption and quote from MOM Guide 8.3.2 is copied below;
“The first exponential is for wavelengths >750nm (i.e., IIR) and assumes a single attenuation of 0.267 meter…”
This assumption means that all long wave solar energy with wavelength greater than 750 nm will be modelled as being subject to significant turbulent mixing.
My understanding is that the models treat the long wave GHG energy the same way that they treat the long wave solar component, by simply including it in the first, nominally 10-meter, grid by assuming an attenuation of 0.267 meter. They simply do not distinguish or account for the fact that long wave energy reemitted by CO^2 and centred at 15 microns is almost totally absorbed in the evaporation layer and is proportionately returned to the atmosphere almost immediately by evaporation when compared to solar energy. To treat this accurately the models would need the first ocean grid to be 0.2mm thick. This is something they appear not to do for reasons of complexity.
CONCLUSION
In general, if a photon of energy is absorbed by a water molecule it increases the velocity of that molecule. This increase in velocity may cause the molecule to break the surface tension of the water body or it may not. If the surface tension of the water is broken, then evaporation occurs and both the introduced and original energy of the molecule is lost to the water body and that body is evaporatively cooled.
If, on the other hand, the molecule does not break the surface tension of the water body for any reason, including that it is too far from the surface, then the introduced energy remains in the water and warms that water.
If this is an accurate representation of what happens then it follows that down Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) could have a slight cooling effect in warmer water, and for colder water a slight warming effect.
The overall effect of this on the earth’s Ocean Heat Content (OHC) is difficult to quantify. What can be said is that LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short-wave solar radiation is not.
It follows that the efficacy of GHG Forcing is likely to be significantly lower than the efficacy of a similar sized solar forcing. A change in GHG forcing is likely, therefore, to have a significantly smaller effect on global temperature, in total and over time, than a similar change in solar forcing to the point where the effect of recent rises in GHG forcing may be negligible.
Forcing efficacy is discussed here;
http://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/HT14/HT14024FU1.pdf
REFERENCES
- Forster, P.M.F., & Taylor, K.E., – Climate Forcings and Climate sensitivities Diagnosed from Climate Model Integrations Coupled. Journal of Climate, 6183, 2006.
- Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., von Schuckmann, K., – Earth’s Energy Imbalance & Implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss, 11, 27031-27105, pp 19-21, 2011.
I’ve read the title many times and I don’t get what its asking. The quick answer would be “read the article”, but the quick answer misses a point.
The topic doesn’t lend itself to a clickbait headline.
Another way to think of this is that the climate system response to different wavelengths may not be uniform. “Back radiation” may be a weak sister to direct solar radiation due to solar insolation’s ability to penetrate deep into the ocean.
“Are all Watts equal”
We need to remember that HadCrud is based on URBAN and airport temperatures, adjusted to fit the climate meme.
As such, using it for comparison purposes is meaningless.
True, this would be much better…
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2021/02/06/the-problem-with-climate-models/
The surface record is FUBAR.
“As such, using it for comparison purposes is meaningless.”
You beat me to it.
In one case (GHGs), heat isn’t being added to the system, it’s simply being redistributed and to some effect delayed in radiating back into space. In the other case, an increase in solar flux, heat/energy is actually being added to the system. Adding energy as opposed to simply redistributing existing energy should ultimately have a greater effect, unless there were an equivalent offset of some kind, say increased albedo from clouds or ice.
Not certain I agree with that. Take a pot of water. Putting a lid on it increases the residence time of energy in the pot. Turning the heat up, without a lid will also increase the T in the pot.
Strictly speaking, energy is energy, and the total energy within the system is what matters. So it matters how much you increase the residence time, and how much you turn the heat up.
The analogy is sound but the use of the analogy to understand whether the two work the same is flawed. When you put a lid on the pot you are restricting convection and evaporative cooling. Turning up the energy doesn’t do that. So the lid version only actually works by altering the the most important cooling process and can’t be applied to considering CO2’s impact in the atmosphere because the resulting feedbacks are not restricted and should act to oppose that warming. Despite what the alarmists want to believe.
In theory it is essentialy the same though yes. Energy input TSI is the same, GHG increases the residence time with the earths system, (via redirecting exiting LWIR of a certain spectrum) thus more total energy within the system. At the most basic there are only two ways to change the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, change the input, or change the residence time of energy within the system.
“At the most basic there are only two ways to change the energy content of a system in a radiative balance, change the input, or change the residence time of energy within the system.”
Ummmm, I don’t think changing the residence time actually changes the energy in the system. It only changes the rate of change of the energy in the system.
If you take two pots on the same kind of burner and bring them them to T0 at time t0, and then turn off the fire, wrap one in an insulating blanket but not the other one, then at time T1 they will have differing energy levels. The insulating blanket didn’t actually change the energy in the system, it only changed the rate of heat loss. A subtle difference but absolutely vital to understanding what’s wrong with the claim of GHG’s “trapping” heat.
You “changed the input.” (“and then turn off the fire,”)
Take the same flame (Input) and by putting a lid on it you increase the residence time WHILE energy input continues. So clearly our system, earth atmosphere and oceans, has a continues input. So the law as quoted yet holds, and total energy in the system MUST increase if you increase residence time while input stays the same.
BTW, I do say “energy” verses thermalised heat, because some of that energy can be put to work, as in LWIR accelerating the evaporative hydrological system, where it may not manifest as heat.
so yes, “A very small burner under a well insulated water filled pot with a heavy lid, can boil the water, where as considerably more flame hitting a thin water filled pot with no lid, may not suceede in boiling the water at all.”
“So the law as quoted yet holds, and total energy in the system MUST increase if you increase residence time while input stays the same.”
Except that doesn’t apply to our atmosphere. It may be true but it doesn’t have to be because feedbacks can, in principle, counteract the CO2’s effect. Or at least very nearly.
That’s why thinking in analogies is always fraught with danger.
Tim, what feedbacks? Ths snow in the NH winter is a negative feedback, (shorter residence time of disparate SW insolation), so cooling. All the feedbacks either increase or decrease residence time. Rick Will makes a comment above about the sea ice insulationg OHC to stay in the oceans, that particular feedback increases OHC, via Longer residence time.
If “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another” and input is continues, and the system (earth, ocean and atmosphere) is in a radiative balance, and you in anyway change the residence time of energy in the system, you do so by increasing or decreasing input energy residence time.
ALL feedbacks are based on this.
If CO2 accelerates the hydrologic system, which acclerates the movement of energy to where it escapes to space, then that particular feedback decreased residence time. The intial very brief capture and redirection of a specific LWIR w/l increased residence time, (The basis of the GHE) Name the feedback that leads to warming or cooling, and energy residence time is the prime factor. Capture a few specific SW w/l from the sun, and stop them from enetering the oceans, you most likely net decreased total residence time, even if said molecules may increased atmospheric residence time. What goes into the oceans eventually comes out. The SH summer, with plus 90 WsqM insolation, (absolutely dwarfing any GHE) leads to a cooler atmospheric T! (Increased NH snow decreases atmospheric residence time in the NH/ In the SH hitting mostly ocean water, and penetrating up to 800′ deep (twilight zone) A portion of that insolation is lost for a time to the atmosphere, but is additive to the total energy in the system. Does the earth gain or lose energy in the SH summer?
Good question. AFAIK climate science has no answer. Does the increased TSI in the SH increase cloud cover? Those affects can either increase or decrease residence time.
The issue. The burner goes on, the burner goes off, the burner goes on, the burner goes off …..
As the temperature goes up while the burner is on the temperature goes up – therefore according to Planck the radiation level goes up as well. When the burner goes off the radiation curve is an exponential decay and will start from a higher point as the temperature goes up. Starting at a higher point means the area under the decay curve increases as well, i.e. more energy lost.
How all this plays out in residence time is complicated. Certainly you can apply more heat to raise the temperature, just like heating two pieces of metal to weld them. But you must inject heat faster than it can be radiated (convected, conducted, etc) away in order for the temperature to go up. The injection of heat by the sun hasn’t changed a lot for a looonnngggg time, so it is at some kind of equilibrium point today.
As you say, you have to be careful in using analogies.
In all cases you are either changing the input or changing the residence time of said input within the system. Not all watts are equal, that is have the same warming potential. So I am still waiting for the example that breaks the statement.
Here is another analogy. The energy coming into the system and leaving is a super highway. (our atmosphere, oceans, and earth) Each photon is like a car, a packet of energy, often mesured in WsqM.
Anything that lengthens the vehicles (energy packet from the sun) stay within the system, increases the total energy in the system. (more total cars within the system) as input is continues.
Anything that shortens the vehicles time within the system, decreases the energy total in the system.(fewer total cars within the system) (Snow increasing earths albedo in the NH winter)
The lenth oftime within the system depends on the W/L entering the system, and the materials encountered.
It is not complicated, and it yet holds, as it is based on the conservation of energy, so it holds.
The main post is directly about this, comparing a LWIR ghg emission to SW solar emission, of equal WsqM, and the relative affect of each on the total energy within the system. It is a good article, and somewhat shocking that “Climate Science” aparently treats all watts the same.
“Anything that lengthens the vehicles (energy packet from the sun) stay within the system, increases the total energy in the system. (more total cars within the system) as input is continues.”
You need to define your “system”. If it is the surface, then as the surface temp goes up from the sun’s energy input so does the amount it radiates away – Planck. But convection and conduction also increases. So just how much is residence time increased for the surface? In essence, the more vehicles you have the faster they leave the highway. If they can’t leave faster than they enter then you have gridlock and everything melts down!
The same thing applies to the atmosphere. As it gets more energy from the sun and the surface it radiates at a higher rate, it rises (convection) at a higher rate, and the GHG’s lose heat at a higher rate (conduction). So just how much is the residence time in the atmosphere increased?
If you are trapping the heat in a closed container, isolated from the rest of the universe, the residence time of the heat in the container is infinite. For anything else, the higher the rate of heat input the higher the rate of heat loss. If you can’t put in more heat than you lose then you reach an equilibrium. If you can continuously put in more heat than you lose then sooner or later you will have meltdown.
I’m not saying that what you are asserting is wrong. I’m just saying how do you measure it? How do you define it? Why hasn’t the earth become a cinder millenia ago?
The systen is clearly defined when I stated it as the atmospher, land and oceans. The input is the sun. (We can quibble about geo thermal) So having given examples, and having received zero that contradict the assertion, we need to see what about it has utility. This WUWT post is a very good example. Not all watts are equal in their warming ability.
Take a hypotheitical change in TSI. The total change may be very small, say on the border of 1 WsqM. Yet if there is a 3 WsqM increase in one W/L that deeply penetrates the ocean, and a 3 WsqM decrease in a W/L that is usually absorbed in the atmosphere, then the total energy in the system will increase as an additional 3 WsqM is going into a very long residence time portion of the system, while the atmosphere will quickly establish a radiative balance to the small decrease in that short residence time input. The deeply ocean penetrating solar insolation going into a very long residence time basin, will add to the total energy system daily, comiserate with the residence time of that specific W/L, which may be for years, plus 3 WsqM entering the oceans, and yeterdays input is still within the system, for days, and weeks, and months, and years, if the residence time of that particular input increase is that long. Some solar cycle changes are multi decadal.
If the residence time of the atmospheric W/L that decreased, is only one day, then that is the most cooling that can come from that change. Yes, there are many feedback complications, and the effect of every one of them is dependent on change of residence time within the system. That is what is good about the pot of water analogy. A very small flame input into an extremely well insolated pot, can bring it to a boil, and a much larger flame into a wide open extremely poorly insolated pot, may not boile at all.
As to the earth not boiling, well many reasons, but the input energy relative to the residence time within the system prevents it, as it always strives for a radiative balance. Nothing about the quoted law would be causative to thinking it an assertion that the earth should boil. Also, as you and as I have mentioned many times, not all energy manifests as heat, and feedbacks driving the system such as evaporation, clouds, albedo, conduction and convection changes, can all increase and potentially provide negative feedback, shortening input energy residence time within the system.
and yes, observations show the purported positive feedbacks, are not there.
Again, the uncertainty of radiometric quantities (i.e. irradiance, W/m2) measured with thermopile instruments is on the order of 5 W/m2, trying to calculate these energy balance totals with a resolution of 0.01 W/m2 is ludicrous. But the IPCC plows ahead and does it regardless.
In some instances, radiative forcing has been claimed with the same order of magnitude as the uncertainty envelope. That leads to a situation where the forcing has a 68% chance of being between zero and 1 W/m2, and the mid-range value is used as a nominal value, with no further thought given to the utility of that nominal value. It is treated like some kind of universal constant known to a precision of several significant figures when even the single-digit nominal value is uncertain.
When did they stop teaching uncertainty at college? Even physical scientists taking Physics 101 lab should have seen this when different people got different measurements for the exact same experiment. Did it just go right over their heads?
When did they calculate the residence time of disparate solar w/l entering the oceans. AFAIK they have not done that either.
NASA’s Hansen has shown that the sun’s irradiance changes by about a quarter of a watt per square meter over a period of about 10 years. What’s interesting is this variation does not appear to be amplified in any way when one looks at the CERES satellite data that shows the earth’s energy imbalance. In fact, the variation does not seem to show up at all. This would suggest that the climate sensitivity is close to zero. An FFT of the satellite data should give a better picture of what the climate sensitivity is, but it appears to be rather small.
It is I think, complicated. The SH summer bathes the earth in plus 90 WsqM. (Closer to the sun) Yet the atmosphere cools. And the author of the post is correct, it is all about energy residence time, and the system you are referring to. The SH summer is cause to shorter atmospheric residence time with snow on much greater land mass in the NH. OTOH the input into the SH oceans is far greater, yet that energy is also, for a time denied the atmosphere, depending on the ocean residence time of said energy. Does the earth, (land, oceans and atmosphere) overall gain or lose energy in the SH summer? Climate Science still has some basics to work on.
As amazing as it seems at first, this claim is generally false. At least over most of our planet. The water will not warm nor will any part of the surface. Why not? It’s due to the 2LOT.
On Earth almost all the photons from GHGs hitting the surface come from the atmospheric boundary layer (lower 1 km). This is the result of saturation. Photons directed at the planet from higher altitudes get absorbed by other molecules below it.
The other key point is the surface and the boundary layer exist in thermal equilibrium. That is, they are essentially the same temperature. This is due to constant energy being shared back and forth through radiation and conduction.
When a downwelling photon is emitted by a GHG it cools the atmosphere. When it is absorbed at the surface it warms the surface, temporarily. We just upset the equilibrium and the 2LOT takes over. Additional energy will be transferred from the surface back into the atmosphere to restore equilibrium.
Keep in mind this is a statistical view. Single photons are irrelevant. However, over trillions of energy transfers between the surface and atmosphere, any change in energy flow will be met with an equal and opposite reaction.
Hence, increased downwelling IR from a GHG will lead to increased conduction/radiation back into the atmosphere. Equilibrium will be maintained which cancels out any warming.
This doesn’t apply when evaporation occurs. The new water molecule will then contribute to an increase in convective forces. Some percentage of them will rise out of the boundary layer. This is called cooling.
This view is erroneous. The upper ocean and the lower atmosphere are not in equilibrium. The upper ocean is on average warmer than the lower atmosphere and the heat flux is almost always, almost all the time, from the ocean to the atmosphere.
This is a map for the month of February of latent heat flux + sensible heat flux. The flux toward the ocean at this time of the year is only in the tiny areas of the Southern Ocean.
The Sun puts the energy in the ocean. The ocean warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not warm the ocean (net flux). Warming the atmosphere will result in reducing the flux from the ocean, which warms because it loses less heat, not because it receives more heat from the atmosphere.
“The atmosphere does not warm the ocean (net flux). Warming the atmosphere will result in reducing the flux from the ocean, which warms because it loses less heat, not because it receives more heat from the atmosphere.”
The atmosphere is not a heat source. The sky isn’t burning. That heat flow from the atmosphere to the ocean is either from the transmission of heat received from the sun or is returning heat the atmosphere received from the ocean.
The heat in the ocean, as measured by its temperature, is ultimately driven solely by the sun. Returned heat from the atmosphere was originally lost by the ocean – net zero.
If the ocean warms, i.e. its temperature goes up, then the gradient between the ocean and space goes up as well, meaning the heat flow from the ocean goes up also, just like you go faster on a steep roller coaster than you do on a shallower one.
If you don’t have equilibrium then the earth would have burned up long ago. That equilibrium is not just radiative equilibrium, it has latent and sensible factors as well.
The Earth is never in radiative equilibrium. It is warming or cooling all the time. Over the course of a year, the planet’s surface changes its temperature by an amazing 3.8ºC, and it is the warmest in July when it is the farthest from the Sun. The Earth is not in radiative equilibrium a single day of the year.
Assuming equilibrium is a common trick in sciences to simplify calculations, but believing in self-assumptions is not very scientific.
Of course the sun warms the surface and at higher latitudes the ocean often warms the atmosphere. The equilibrium is general, not perfect. But that’s not important. It is always trying to achieve equilibrium and often does. It is the natural effect of the 2LOT.
My point is still valid. The effect of more CO2 radiating downward IR is lost as energy gets transferred back and forth trying to achieve equilibrium.
Nope. The ocean transfers net heat to the atmosphere at all latitudes nearly all the time. Only during peak summer at high latitudes in small areas does the atmosphere transfer net heat to the ocean.
The concept of equilibrium is useful but incorrect. The Earth is never in equilibrium with space, the ocean is never in equilibrium with the atmosphere. The temperature, enthalpy, and entropy change every second everywhere.
You are still missing the point. It’s the process of trying to achieve equilibrium that prevents GHGs low in the atmosphere from ever warming the surface. Here’s what NOAA says about this interface.
“the skin SST is closely coupled to the atmosphere-ocean exchanges of heat and momentum making the bulk-skin SST difference a quantity that varies with fairly short time and space scales depending on the prevailing atmospheric conditions”
I’m not talking about energy sources which originate outside the boundary layer/surface skin. That is a different topic which you appear to think I’m commenting on.
“The concept of equilibrium is useful but incorrect. The Earth is never in equilibrium with space, the ocean is never in equilibrium with the atmosphere.”
You are trying to conflate static equilibrium and dynamism. Of course you will never have static equilibrium. That doesn’t mean the system doesn’t dynamically strive for static equilibrium. It just never gets there.
“The ocean transfers net heat to the atmosphere at all latitudes nearly all the time.”
And the ocean heat content comes from?
This is where you go wrong. GHG forcing is contrived nonsense.
The energy balance on Earth is controlled by temperature regulating processes. Ocean water turns to ice at -1.7C and dramatically reduces the rate of cooling due to its insulating property.
Ocean atmospheres form persistent cloud once the surface reaches 30C. That cloud dramatically reduces the amount of solar EMR thermalised such that 30C surface temperature is the maximum sustainable temperature of open ocean water.
This day, June 6 2023, the Arabian Sea is getting a dose of convective cooling:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/level/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-295.56,13.02,483/loc=66.789,14.066
That will rip 3C off the surface temperature so it is back under 30C. The same thing happened about 2 weeks ago in the western Pacific near Philippines:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/24/0000Z/ocean/surface/level/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-240.86,4.81,483/loc=132.120,14.472
and three weeks in the Bay of Bengal:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/12/0000Z/ocean/surface/level/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-255.28,4.69,483/loc=85.048,14.924
Convection limits Earth’s surface temperature and energy uptake. Earth has withstood numerous climate shocks and yet maintains a relatively stable climate due to the critical role of convective instability.
Convective potential is ubiquitous across the tropics. Its consequence is far more powerful than any delicate radiation imbalance:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/12/0000Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=cape/orthographic=-255.28,4.69,483/loc=81.755,12.300
CAPE is the driving force for convection and initiates convective storms that have such a dramatic impact on ocean surface temperature. Every joule of long wave energy leaving the atmosphere over tropical oceans contributes to the convective potential.
What a train wreck:
First: Read Stefan and what he has to say about objects that radiate – esp that all/any objects at any time/place radiate according their own individual circumstance.
They only have 2 circumstances = their own temperature and their own emissivity.
In a ‘constellation’ or group of objects, what they each radiate does not depend on what any other objects may be near or far, what temperature they may be or the medium between them.
This being the prime reason why the GHGE is junk:
Why:
i.e Josef Stefan (everyone’s ultimate authority on the GHGE) saw this thing coming and explicitly ruled it out
Second: Efficiency
When calculating efficiency, as this story tries to do, ‘power’ is NOT the quantity you should be talking about.
Primarily because it assumes 100% absorption efficiency
Enter: Sadi Carnot
When ‘energy’ such as electromagnetic radiation is absorbed by ‘matter’ ‘substance’ stuff and or molecules so as to effect a temperature rise, what is happening there is a Carnot Heat Engine.
Radiation is ‘pure energy’ and temperature is a measure of the mechanical agitation of the molecules of the absorbing substance.
i.e. Energy is being turned into motion, momentum or the classic ½mv² we are all familiar with
When that happens and is what puzzled Carnot, is that all the ‘pure energy’ does not appear in the output of the heat engine.
Some of the input energy simply seems to vanish – Carnot wondered why and where does it go.
Hence we get the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – also Entropy
No especial matter where the energy went/goes, Carnot realised and incredibly elegant formula to describe how the input energy to any heat engine was divide up = how much became ½mv² and how much went ‘elsewhere’
We all know that formula yet its complete non-mention inside of Climate Science has got to be The Crime of The Millennium. and more.
All Carnot’s equation needs is an input temperature for your incoming energy and an output temperature of your engine. be that a jet engine, steam turbine/engine, petrol engine, an infra-red sauna or heat-lamp or El Sol shining down on Earth
So straight away we can do some calcs:
A thermal power station:
Temp of steam into turbine = 200°C (473Kelvin) and temp of cooling tower = 30°C (303Kelvin) so the Carnot efficiency is = 1 minus 303divide473= 35%
a figure we’re all familiar with
El Sol radiating into Earth
Temp into Earth = temp of Sol = 5700Kelvin
Temp of Earth = 15°C = 288Kelvin
Thus 1 minus 288divide5700 gives an efficiency for Sol heating Earth of 95%
another figure we’re a familiar with. are we?
But anyway, Sol is very good at heating Earth
Atmosphere radiating into Earth
Temp of atmosphere = -15C = 258Kelvin
Temp of Earth surface = +15C = 288Kelvin
Thus 1 minus 288divide258 = minus 11%
The GHGE describes a Heat Engine with negative efficiency
Apart from the sheer ridiculousness of that, what we can salvage from the wreckage if we really tried is that the earth surface is heating the atmosphere.
Which is where we came in to start with.
So WTF is all the fuss about
How nice to see this article clearly explaining the different behaviour of LW and SW wrt to absorption by the ocean:
“It is established physics that the world’s oceans are opaque to energy with the wavelength generally reemitted by CO^2. This energy is almost totally absorbed in the first 0.15mm skin of the oceans. The top 1.0 mm of the ocean is generally referred to as the evaporation layer, so accordingly energy reemitted by the GHGs and striking the ocean is largely returned to the atmosphere immediately as latent heat of evaporation. It is then returned to space relatively quickly.
Solar energy, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly responsible for the temperature profile of the world’s oceans. It is readily absorbed to a depth of up to 100 meters in clear water and can remain in the ocean for centuries or sometimes thousands of years.“.
+42
Incidentally, some of the downward LW from CO2 doesn’t even reach the ocean surface, because it is absorbed in the layer of high-intensity water vapour just above the surface.
Thanks Mike.
I can’t see how this could not affect the relative efficacies of the two forcings.
I see this as quite possibly being significant.
GHG gas forcings overwhelmingly affect the atmosphere with TOA equilibrium being restored relatively quickly.
while Solar forcing is absorbed in the oceans to a greater degree with longer delays.
Do you see it that way?
Yes.
Not all watts are equal. And residence time is the key.
“There is only two ways to change the energy content of a system (earth, oceans, atmosphere) in a radiative balance. Either a change in input, or a change in the residence time of energy within the system.”
..and yes, the residence time of S/W solar entering the oceans is far far longer then the residence time of an equal w/m2 LWIR GHE redirected towards the surface.
A very small burner under a well insulated water filled pot with a heavy lid, can boil the water, where as considerably more flame hitting a thin water filled pot with no lid, may not suceede in boiling the water at all.
Does GHG Forcing Have Significantly Less Efficacy Than a Similar Sized Solar Forcing?
Yes of course it does. High frequency radiation is not the same thing as low frequency radiation. Their quality is different.
Glad to see someone else recognises that long wave cant warm water, only short wave.
But, todays high temp is due to todays sunlight at the surface, not last centuries sunlight, or last centuries CO2.
Lag is a few hours.
Yes, there are effects form the sea, these are relatively short lived (in distance) as you move in from the coast.
The sea might be 10 C, but if the air temp is – 5 C, if you are a mile inland, it is -5 C (excluding strong winds, of course)
The world is warming because it has an imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. The ocean, besides transporting heat, has its main role in opposing climate change. It absorbs heat when the planet is warming (like now), and it releases heat when the planet is cooling. It won’t release its heat when the planet is warming. The ocean makes sure climate change doesn’t get out of hand. That’s why we, land animals, are still here after 450 million years.
The CO2 crowd claims the top of the atmosphere imbalance is due to the increase in CO2, but they haven’t proven it. An increase in CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR and warms the surface through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation. However, the CERES system informs that the top of the atmosphere imbalance is due to an increase in shortwave radiation absorption. So it could be due to anything, from cloud changes to atmosphere transparency or changes in heat distribution.
“The world is warming because it has an imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.”
I am not sure we have enough measurement accuracy to be able to say either of these things with any confidence at all.
For example, climate scientists write things like “TOA incoming solar power is measured at 1300 W/m^2”. But a power measurement depends on two temperatures, so this measurement is irrelevant at any other point on Earth. It is only relevant at the temperature of the CERES sensor, and they won’t even tell us what that is. At least not that I could find…
It doesn’t matter. If the planet’s surface is warming –and it is warming on the multidecadal scale– there must be a positive imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Under present circumstances, the Earth cannot warm or cool just by moving energy from one place to another without affecting the balance at the top of the atmosphere.
The top of the atmosphere energy imbalance can also be measured by measuring the changing ocean heat content, as the atmosphere does not store heat. The measurement is slightly more precise this way than with satellites and not very different.
“If the planet’s surface is warming –and it is warming on the multidecadal scale”
We don’t know that. There isn’t even a universally accepted definition of “average global surface temperature” – which is a sketchy physics concept given that air temperature is an extrinsic property rather than an intrinsic one, and that temperature itself is only part of the energy equation. So how do we know whether it is warming or cooling on any given time scale? You can say that with some confidence about a single thermometer station, yes – but as soon as you have two thermometers separated in space, things get dicey quickly from a theoretical perspective.
“measuring the changing ocean heat content”
That is also an undefined term – there is no such thing as “ocean heat content”. Heat is a measure of the flow of energy, so it obviously can’t be a “content”. Instead, there could be a definition of “global average ocean temperature” (slightly less sketchy than global average air temperature, since humidity stops being a variable), but there is no practical way for us to measure that either, not to within a degree or two, never mind the fractions of a degree claimed by the oceanographers. We simply don’t have anywhere near enough thermometers in the oceans. They are huge, and moving, and constantly warming and cooling themselves under the influence of sunlight, evaporation, ocean currents, ocean floor mantle volcanic outflows, etc.
Thats a nice model, the oceans as a damper, and very accurate too.
Of course the main reason the oceans cant warm from AGW is because they are 3 C warmer than the air temp!
There is 1000 times the energy in the oceans compared to the atmosphere. Disparate solar spectrum has an ocean residence time of minutes to centurries. Disparate solar cycles go through known and unknown flux that lasts for multiple 11 year solar cycles. So a long term change in solar cycle intensity, combined with a large change in w/l, could conceiviably put immense plus energy into the oceans, and that energy could come to the atmosphere the next day, month, year, or even century.
If the energy is ‘coming into the atmosphere’ in any meaningful way, why are the oceans 3 C warmer than the air temp on average?
And explain how the sea can be 10 C, even in the UK, and the land at – 22 C
And the UK is a very small country, the furthest one can be from the sea is 69 miles, and has a very maritime climate.
A thing is easy to say, but you need to prove it! Where is the effect!
I do not belive it is 3C. I do agree that the M T of the oceans is warmer. And I did not assert the LWIR from C02 was warming the ocenas. (They also cover about 70 percent of the surface and, as the energy input has a longer residence time, the they have emmensely more total energy then the atmosphere. So, despite a measely 4 c average (not surface of course) they are warming the atmosphere. Some of that warmth is from TSI received decades to 1000 years ago.
Yet your point about the UK is not trivial, yet conteracts the assertion that the oceans do not have a “meaningful” contribution to the atmosphere. Horizontal and ocean currents transport water for thousands of miles and vertical currents can bring water for miles up or down, that Ocean energy is ‘coming into the atmosphere’ in a meaningful way,
Yet the point is clear, the ocean residence time of sw TSI is very long, and is likley very involved when we go into and out of glacial cycles.
Among many things we do not know about the oceans is the mean residence time of all geo thermal within the oceans. This, and the fact that energy from the sun accumalates below the ocean surface before releasing to the surface, likley partially accounts for the m T of the ocean surface being above the M T of the surface atmosphere.
And if the climate models don’t accurately handle clouds, they *certainly* don’t handle the ocean correctly.
Article says:”In general, if a photon of energy is absorbed by a water molecule it increases the velocity of that molecule.”
This statement is far too general. Only high energy sunlight increases velocity (translation). IR causes vibration and microwave is rotation. The specific heat of water for both sea and fresh is around 4 and coupled with a mass of 18 requires lots of energy to change temperature. So one photon does nothing.
Sunlight can’t be compared to IR in that sunlight has the capacity to do work. Witness the large mirrored bird fryer in California desert. It does work at night.
I am with Peta on this.
The title is, to me, clear and very pertinent. It is specifically about energy residence time. And there is a law for that. “Only two things can change the energy content of a system (In this case the earths atmosphere, land and oceans) in a radiative balance, either a change in input, or a change in the residence time of energy within the system.” The corralary law is The input residence time is predicated on two things, the EM spectrum of the TSI, and the materials encountered.
So yes, a small change in solar input to the oceans, in a w/l that deeply penetrates the ocean, can continuely add more energy daily for the duration of said residence time. A small input into the atmosphere, can have a greatly smaller warming affect, or use the very same energy to accelerate the hydrolgic and convective cycle, almost no warming affect. So yes, not all watts are equal as to their warming potential.
(On the other hand, Anthony Watts is superb! (-;)
Thanks David. I agree.
It is all about residence time in my opinion.
We should be introducing an efficacy constant into all ECS calculations.
The Energy Balance Model that I put together worked well with GHG Efficacy at about a quarter of the Solar Efficacy.
I’m not saying that this is correct, all this is of course extremely complex,
but it might give some sort of indication.
Not all watts are equal and not all feedback is to warming alone.
Thank you for the post and response Bob. I actually had a couple of conversations with some physicists Watts up authors regarding “residence time”. One was very long, as using residence time as the determinent in every process was fasinating to them. (names. shoot, Brown and Ira??)
( I know that GHGs can also take conducted energy high in the atmosphere, and SHORTEN that residence time, compared to a non GHG molecule that will not send that energy packet to space.) I have never seen an engineering quality print on the CO2 affect of energy residence time. Besides the top of atmospher GHG molecule zipping energy to space, that a non GHG molecule will not do, there is a consideration that the CO2 GHG molecule being absorbed at the ocean surface, is rapidly spent in evaporative energy, that yes, increases water vapor. (So we are right back to Joni Mitchell clouds, hydrlogical cycle, which in itself requires tremendous energy to accelerate, W/V in the atmosphere which yes, is a GHG yet already saturated, that also limits various TSI w/l from reaching the land and ocean surface.
My analogy was the top of the atmospher is the super two way highway all cars (energy packets) must travel, both arriving and leaving, and the cars all move at different speeds on many disparate roads in the system, before leaving. The more cars on the road, the more energy within the system. Slow down any one car, and there are more total cars (energy) on the roads. Accelerate any one car, and there are less cars on the road. (speeding up and slowing down are analagus to longer and shorter roads) While a GHG car on an atmospheric road may take a longer, more eratic atmospheric travel, if in that travel it avoids a road within the oceans because of that turn, it has possibly actually left the system sooner.
Or alternatively other TSI absorbed by atmospheric gases and water vapor, never reach the oceans because of those molecules. where they would have had longer travel within the system if they had reached the oceans. The plus 90 WsqM SH summer, but cooler atmospher is very appropriate here.
I think something about this, and going into and out of full blown glacials, is very relevant here and is related to the oceans. It is conceivable that tropical ocean heat transport under geographically increased ice caps very very slowly warms the oceans. I think there is a salt, or lack of, thermocline just under the ice that keeps the warmer water a bit lower. Yet truthfully I have no way to quantify these WAGs.
Like all things Climate Science, ther are a thousands teeter totters moving up and down, warming and cooling, and when many of them are in phase, then we get extremes.
All the best. (Feel free to use David’s law, posted above)
Thanks David,
You appear to one of only a few commenters here who actually get what I was trying to say.
Every feedback in the system can be defined by residence time.
A negative-feedback to initial warming reduces residence time while a positive-feedback increases residence time.
It is amazing to me, then that no Climate Sensitivity studies, (apart from my attempt from 2014 linked above) to my knowledge, have even considered this concept.
My model worked with an ECS of 1.4C for CO2 with a solar ECS of about 4 times that. How we think about this is difficult.
My method may not be appropriate but here goes.
The no-feedback response is calculated by assuming the earth is a blackbody i.e. has not convection, conduction etc. This will be the same on the surface (GHG) as it would be at the average solar absorption depth in the ocean. The same calculation applies.
The ocean acts as strong positive feedback since it increases the average residence time for solar forcing. When this energy reaches the surface it is then subject to the same atmospheric feedback as all other energy but has by then been magnified by about 4 in my model.
Hope this makes sense.
David’s Law explains a lot more sense than we possibly realize.
Bob says,
“Every feedback in the system can be defined by residence time.
A negative-feedback to initial warming reduces residence time while a positive-feedback increases residence time.”
I have been saying something along these lines for some time. The oceans are a GHL (Green House Liquid” if you will.)
It is intersting to me as I watch or read debates on these issues, as most every argument involve residence time.
Bob, I hope you will take the time to read the post I am linking here. It is not meant for skeptics to C.C. It was written to pursuade those who only ever hear the BBC, or NPR or any MSM news or social media regarding Global Warming. It has been very sucessful when shared with sincere academics and the general public, and there are specific reasons for that.
It is necessry to summarize an overview of the situation, and is specifically designed to be shared with skeptics of the view presented, to present a broad based summary of various aspects of the subject in question that encapsulates the cogent factors that must be considered for anyone to legitimately formalize a rational perspective.
For instance, regarding COVID and the vaccines, it is rather hopeless to hope to get a friend or loved one to read long detailed articles on why the COVID infection statistics on vaccinated versus un-vaccinated, are not what is presented, and another on why the virus is likely man made, and another on why the vaccines are harmful and ineffective, and another on why they force evasive mutations, why they cause immune system harm, why they are primarily responsible for excess deaths, or to even convince one there are excess deaths. Also one needs to explain VAERS and why it is legitimate and wrongly ignored. Additionally needed is everything the CDC and other government agencies do that purposefully ignores effective solutions to the pandemic, and properly determining the efficacy of the vaccines. All of this and more, is valid and rationally required prior to forming a valid position. Each skeptical position is layered, and they reinforce the other reasons, so the issue must be tied together as a comprehensive whole. A poor first attempt often closes the door on any further.
This birds eye view is problematic to express, so most folk send one detailed post on one aspect or another of a multifaceted issue. The person reading only has to find some critique of that particular study, or a contrary paper on that particular assertion, or a contrary assertion from an MSM narrative “fact checker” and they go on, unconvinced and perhaps resentful.
Indeed, when one is taking a contrary to the narrative position, one is at a disadvantage based on the inescapable reality that every other possible perspective is loaded into the skeptics position, thus your view, no matter how rational, is part of the everything else “denier” camp. You deny GHGs have any possible warming. You deny viruses are real. You are a Moon landing denier, and a “conspiracy theorist”. You are lumped with “them” and often effectively marginalized.
This is why I do not address things like chem-trails, or weather modifications, or the position that there is no greenhouse effect, or the possible US cause of 911, or the “viruses are not real” position. They may, or may not be supportable, but they are in a losing position, (a minority even within the skeptics camp) and often a distracting position from the main issues affecting policy and destroying nations and lives. So, as I have not committed the time and effort required to have a position on those rare views, I leave them be. (“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”)
That is why I wrote this below article on Global Warming, to, as articulately as I am able, tackle the issue from every important policy affecting perspective.
https://open.substack.com/pub/anderdaa7/p/global-warming?r=slvym&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
“I have never seen an engineering quality print on the CO2 affect of energy residence time.”
David.
This needs to be written up professionally and published. Do you have any physicist contacts who would be prepared to examine “residence time” as it affects climate sensitivity.
A solar multiplier has been sought for a long time now. Cosmic ray cloud effect etc. Non have really held up, although there must be one.
Mine and your ideas around residence time should explain solar links to climate over long time periods very well. I can’t see why these ideas are not the long sought solar multiplier.
I view this as exciting and a possible important breakthrough.
WUWT have my email. Contact me privately if you see a way to take this further.
I will certainly be reading your link. Unfortunately, I will be unavailable for about 3 days and will leave a comment when I’m back on deck.
Bob, thank you kindly for reading my link when you find the time. If you think it effective in the stated goal, I would be fine with Anthony sharing it here, not for the purpose of educating the many skeptics, but to put such an over view in their hands to be shared. CAGW has been ongoing for may many decades now, and as such, the holes are well exposed, and the politics as well. Red pill someone on climate change, and a host of issues open up. That is why I wrote the aritcle. However if Anthoy wanted to share it, I would clean it up a little. ( It is pretty decent as it is.)
Regarding “residence time” and if I can help. I am afraid I am in no way shape or form a scientist. I am decently intelligent, and self educated in the field, having read extensively for decades. I am a bit slow on the uptake ( because I have to get an overall feel and understanding before I am comfortable, and that takes time) yet somehow in whatever endevour I undertake, I usually manage to come up with a decent cohesive encapsulation, that everyman can understand. So “David’s law” regarding residence time is what this brain grasped about 10 years ago or so when I first wrote it.
I see many venuse of potential research, Like the varied residence time of each insolation W/L. So the solar multiplier would change or be varied for each W/L. Also the Pressure induced enhancement paper Tallbloke often discusses, is for me far easier to understand based on residence time. Increase the density of the atmosphere, GHG or not, and you increase residence time.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/unified-theory-of-climate-nikolov-and-zeller/
As mentioned, the two physicists I spoke with about this were responsive to me on WUWT years ago. I only remember the first name of one, Ira, and the last of another Brown. Ira in particular liked the concept and conversation. I am certain Anthony will know how to contact them if they have any further academic interest in the concept. To me it appears indelible, and worthy of professional hands. They both affirmed my “law” based on energy being neither created or destroyed.
All the Best
David A
David
See reply above, 18/6
Hi David,
I read your essay from your post 11/6.
It is an interesting approach to an interesting problem.
How to talk to a CAGW disciple.
I thought it was a good attempt and more likely to get through than simply pointing out the obvious scientific flaws in the CAGW belief system.
My own approach, a few years ago, was to attempt an explanation of the science in simple terms, pointing out the difficulties with the IPCC’s high feedback etc. Mine worked with a number of my friends who were more the open-minded type and interested in the debate.
It of course remained unread by the CAGW crowd.
Your essay, on the other hand, would be more accessible to the true believer, and would do a better job for that reason.
My only criticism is regarding the use of bold text to make a point. I feel it is not necessary and is a bit aggressive. It would immediately turn off a left-wing reader as they are generally well tuned to and would ridicule this type of thing.
They see the right, and therefore climate sceptics as aggressive and this would reinforce that prejudice. Only my opinion.
You may have to shorten the essay for WUWT if possible. It would certainly be worth trying to post it here and seeing what happens. A lot of the readers here would be interested in your approach to the “how to educate CAGW believers” problem.
Cheers
Maybe I am wrong, but I understand this as a convoluted way of saying that the climate response to an increase in greenhouse gases may result in a smaller change in temperature than predicted by theory or by models that do not really represent the real climate system.
Solar forcing is of two kinds, direct or indirect.
Direct solar forcing is the change in energy from changes in total solar irradiation due to solar variability. It is the only one considered by the IPCC, and it is exceedingly small. Just 0.1%. You should not be able to detect it from the climate noise. You will not get climate change from it.
Indirect solar forcing is much bigger and needed to explain why the effect of solar changes is 4 times bigger than accounted for in surface temperature and 10 times bigger in tropical ocean subsurface heat budget. Indirect solar forcing is recognized by the IPCC but completely neglected by the IPCC and nearly all climate scientists. Only a handful of scientists study it and they don’t get cited in IPCC’s ARs. Nor do they get any prizes or recognition for their effort.
Indirect solar forcing is based on the effect of some photons on some places affecting the climate system in complex ways with the energy for the climate change provided by the climate system itself. Paleoclimatic evidence is very clear that solar indirect forcing is the main climate forcing on centennial timescales.
Agree.
Not all warming is related to watts and not all watts are equal.
For example, the possible cosmic ray effect on clouds or a greening earth from CO2 increase may affect the global temperature.
Solar affect should certainly be divided into a number of different categories each with different efficacies as you say.
This is not dissimilar to the difference between GHG radiation ocean penetration and solar radiation ocean penetration. The difference is due to the physical nature of the forcing and is described by its efficacy.
This in my opinion, should be taken into account when we look at the earth’s response to the various forcings.
Javier, is there a better definition of indirect solar forcing? Also, doesn’t the composition of TSI matter? Doesn’t SW radiation vary by 10% due to sunspots activity? Also, much more is going on than just TSI regarding the sun’s impact on the Earth’s climate.
Yes the compostion of ALL TSI matters a great deal, and each has a disparate residence time do to the w/l and the materials encountered.
Nelson, beside the comment just below, the answer is no TSI varies by a very small amount from solar cycles. However some specific w/l have much more variation, and the residence time of each w/l is crucial for determining any long term addition or subtaction to the total energy in the system.
Thanks go out to all those (e.g., RickWill, Peta of Newark) WUWT commenters
who have expressed skepticism with regard to the baroque greenhouse gas narrative
of Mr. Irvine. There is so much to criticize here that one does not know where to
begin. Take, for example, the concept of “forcing”.
This concept hardly existed in science until the greenhouse effect, global
warming hoaxsters started to hype it up to further their anti-capitalistic,
anti-science politics. And so was born the preposterous notion that a gas (carbon
dioxide) — that exists in our thin (relative to the density of the solid Earth)
atmosphere at a thinner 0.04% by volume, with that atmosphere open to outer space
at one end and with the predominant energy of the Sun, the only warmer of the
surface of the Earth (where all the weather is), going through it (sometimes
blocked by lots of haze) and being absorbed by the solid Earth at the other end —
can somehow effect changes in global temperatures. How does this demonic gas
accomplish this at such low concentrations? By absorbing an insignificant
(relative to the Sun’s energy) band of far-infrared energy emitted by that Earth
(which that gas does absorb but then, at lower altitudes, immediately and
non-radiatively releases to its immediate molecular surroundings and so has
almost no effect) and then, somehow, radiatively casting it back down towards the
Earth, to effectuate those changes. They wanted to make it seem that this fantasized process, totally ignoring the role of atmospheric convection, based on fudged, inscrutable models, not science, was nevertheless, somehow, inevitable and irresistible. Vely
intaresting. Luk zee into mein eyes. Don’t you just feel the force just forcing
you to be forced? Especially when you know you’ll lose your academic position and
be canceled if you don’t feel it?
This concept of “forcing” is foreign to science, in general, and particularly so when
dealing with such a wildly complex phenomenon as global temperature, which has so
many things and processes affecting it, but none, except under extreme conditions,
“forcing” it.
The only time the concept of “forcing” in science is generally useful is when
you are focusing on a simplified system (usually vaguely connected to a complex one
which is the real object of your study) with a few interacting elements such that
the outcome can be analyzed with mathematical (but not scientific) precision. This
mathematical precision gives rise to the concept of forcing. But when you make
such a simplification there are caveats: Do the few simple elements really
correspond to correlates in reality that have significant causal influence? Are
there other predominating factors that work parallel to the ones you are
considering? Are you leaving out counteracting elements that swamp the causal
connection you think you have identified?
If you don’t look at the overall science and the facts carefully enough, the
“forcing” you observe just becomes a trivial artifact of the over-simplification
process you arbitrarily hypothesized, having nothing to do with reality nor all its
complex array of interacting variables. This is exactly what has happened with
regard to the CO2 greenhouse forcing effect allegedly warming the Earth. It’s an
artifact. It’s not real science.
David Solan
The concept of “force” does exist in reality. However it gets totally misused when applied as “forcing” in climate science. If you let a test unit go down an incline the “force” of gravity is what moves it downward. If you wind up a spring as the wheels on the test unit go down it can store the energy used by gravity. If you release the spring that stored energy can be used to generate work (force x distance) to move the test vehicle back up the incline.
BUT, that stored energy will *NOT* move the test vehicle further up the slope than where it started at. And it only gets to the starting point if you assume a frictionless universe.
CO2 is no different. It is either transmitting energy received from the sun or returning energy it received from the earth. Only energy from the sun can push the earth’s temperature higher, returned energy cannot. Thus there is no danger of CO2 turning the earth into a cinder, it can’t push temperatures higher than what the sun provides for. At most minimum temps will be what goes up – a beneficial occurrence for humankind.
I dislike the entire “forcing” model and the implied consequences, such as an atmosphere mad of treacle. Heat transfers from the land to the atmosphere by conduction and from there to the rest of the atmosphere by convection. A similar thing happens with the ocean.
Upper OHC increased notably since 1995 with the decline in low cloud cover, due to weaker solar wind states driving a warmer AMO via negative NAO conditions. That’s a negative feedback.